

.sw 



u:t:.?^oo,o 



^ESs 






HOLUNGER 
pH 8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1343 



DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



SPEECHES 



or 

HON. CHARLES SUMNER, 



ON THE 



BOSTON MEMORIAL 



FOB, THE 

REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 

AND IN REPLY TO 

MESSRS. JONES OF TENNESSEE, BUTLER OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 
AND MASON OF VIRGINIA. 



.'■^\ 



IN SENATE OF UNITED STATES, JUNE 26 AND S8, 18S4. 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 

1854. 



jflE ' 






WBRHMNC 

Mi « m 



SPEECHES. 



[IN SENATE.— On tbe 22d June, Mr. Rock- 
well, of Massachusetts, presented the following 
Memorial, stating that it was signed by twenty- 
nine hundred persons, chiefly of Boston, and 
moved its reference to the Committee on the 
Judiciary : 

" To the Ilonorable the Senate and House of 
Representatives in Congress asembled : The un- 
dersigned, men of MassachiiscUs, ask for the repeal 
of the Act of Congress of 1850, known as the 
FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL." 

On June 26, a debate ensued, on the motion to 
refer the memorial, in which Mr. Jones of Ten- 
nessee, Mr. Rockwell of Massachusetts, and then 
again Mr. Jones, took part At this stage, 

Mr. SUMNER took the floor, and spoke as 
follows : ] 

Mr. President : I begin by answering the in- 
terrogatory propounded by the Senator from Ten- 
nessee, [Mr. Jones.] He asks, "Can any one sup- 
pose that, if the Fugitive Slave Act be repealed, 
this Union can exist?" To which I reply at 
once, that if the Union be in any way dependent 
on an act — I cannot call it a law — so revolting 
in every regard as that to which he refers, then 
it ought not to exist. To much else that has 
fallen from that Senator I do not desire to reply. 
He has discussed at length matters already han- 
dled again and again in the protracted debates 
of this session. Like the excited hero of Mace- 
donia, he has renewed past conflicts, 

" And thrice ho routed all his foes, 
And thrice he slew the slain." 

Of what the Senator has said on the relations of 
Senators, North and South, of a particular party, 
it is not my province to speak. And yet I cannot 
turn from it without expressing, at least, a single 
aspiration, that men from the North, whether 
"Whigs or Democrats, will neither be cajoled or 
driven by any temptation, or lash, from the sup- 
port of those principles of freedom which are in- 
separable from the true honor and welfare of the 
country. At last, I ti-ust, there will be a back- 
bone in the North. 

My colleague has already remarked, that this 
memorial proceeds from persons of whom many 



were open supporters of the alleged Compromises 
of 1850, including even the odious Fugitive Slave 
Bill. I have looked over the long list, and, so far 
as I can judge, find this to be true. And, in vay 
opinion, the change shown by these men is typi- 
cal of the change in the community of which they 
constitute a prominent part. Once the positive 
upholders of the Fugitive Slave BID, they now 
demand its unconditional repeal. 

There is another circumstance worthy of espe- 
cial remark. This memorial proceeds mainly 
from persons connected with trade and commerce. 
Now, it is a fact too well known in the history of 
England, and of our own country, that these per- 
sons, while often justly distinguished by their 
individual charities and munificence, have been 
lukewarm in their opposition to slavery. Twice 
in English history the "mercantile interest" 
frowned upon the endeavors to suppress the atroci- 
ty of Algerine slavery ; steadfastly in England it 
sought to bafile Wilberforcc's great effort for the 
abolition of the African slave trade ; and, at the 
formation of our own Constitution, it stipulated 
a sordid compromise, by which this same detest- 
ed. Heaven-defying traffic, was saved for twenty 
years from American judgment. But now it is 
all changed — at least in Boston. The represent- 
atives of the "mercantile interest" place them- 
selves in the front of the new movement against 
slavery, and, by their explicit memorial, call for 
the abatement of a grievance which they have 
recently bitterly felt in Boston. 

Mr. President, this memorial is interesting to 
me, first, as it asks a repeal of the Fugitive Slave 
Bill, and secondly, as it comes from Massachu- 
setts. That repeal I shall be glad at any time, 
now and hereafter, as in times past, to sustain by 
vote and argument; and I trust never to fail in 
any just regard for the sentiments or interests' of 
Massachusetts. With these few remarks, I would 
gladly close. But there has been an arraignment 
here to-day, both of myself and of the Common- 
wealth which I represent. To all that has been 
said of myself or the Commonwealth — so far 
as it is an impeachment of either — so far as it 
subjects either to any just censure, I plead open- 
ly, for myself and for Massachusetts, " not guilty." 
But pardon me, if I do not submit to be tried by 
the Senate, fresh from the injustice of the Ne- 
braska Bill. In the language of the common law 



I put myself upon "God and the country," 
ftiid clftiin the same trial for my honored Com- 
manweallh. 

So far as the arraignment touches me person- 
ally, I hardly (.■arc to speak. It is true thatl have 
not hesitated, here and elsewhere, to express my 
open, sincere, and unequivocal condemnation of 
the Fugitive Slave Bill. 1 have denounced it as 
at once a violation of the law of God, and of the 
Constitution of the United States. 

In violation of the t'unstitution, it commits the 
great question of luunau freedom — than vhich 
none is more sacred in the law — ntjt to a solemn 
trial, but to summary i)rocecdinps. 

It commits this question — not to one of the 
high tribunals of the land — biit to the unaided 
judgment of a single petty magistrate. 

It commits this (piestion to a magistrate, ap- 
pointed, not by the President with the consent of 
the Senate, but by the court ; holding his office, 
not during good behaviour, but merely during 
the will of the court; and receiving, not a regu- 
lar salary, but fees according to each individual 
case. 

It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, 
by afliilavits, without the sanction of cross-ex- 
amination. 

It denies the writ of habeas corpus, ever known 
as the palladium of the citizen. 

Contrary to the declared purposes of the fra- 
mers of the Constitution, it sends the fugitive 
back " at the public expense." 

Adding meanness to the violation of the Con- 
stitution, it bribes the commissioner by a double 
fee to pronounce against freedom. If he dooms 
a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars ; but, 
saving him to freedom, his dole is five dollars. 

But this is not all. On two other capital 
g:o'.uid.s do T oppose this act as unconstitutional ; 
first, as it is an assumption by Congress of powers 
not deletrivted by the Constitution, and in dero- 
gdtiou of the rights of the States ; and, second- 
ly, as it takes away that essential birthright of 
the citizen, trial by jury, in a question of personal 
liberty and a suit at common law. Thus obnox- 
ious, I have regarded it as un enactment totally 
devoid of all constitutional obligation, as it is 
clearly devoid of all moral, while it is disgrace- 
ful to the country and the age. And, sir, I have 
hoped and labored for the creation of such a 
Public O[jinion, firm, enlightened, and generous, 
?.s should render the act practically inoj)erative, 
(uid should press, without ceasing, upon Congress 
for its rcjjLMl. For all that I have said on this 
head, I have no regrets or apologies ; but rather 
joy. and .satisfaction. Glad 1 am iu having said 
fl; Ighid I am now iu the opj)ortunity of affirming 
it all anew. Thus much for myself. 

In response for Massachusetts, there arc other 
things. Something curely must be pardoned to 
hor history. In Massachusetts stands Hoston. In 
Loslon stands Fancuil llall, where, throughout 
t?if-. porils which prcced.'d the Ilcvolution, our 
p-Jriot fathers assembled iu vdw tlieinselves to 
freedom. Here, in those days, spoke .lames Otis, 
fall of the tlKjught that " the people's .sufci.y is the 
law of God." Here, also, spoke Jame.s Warren, 
Inspired by the sentiment that " death with all its 



tortures is preferable to slavery." 'And here, also, 
thundered John Adams, fervid with the convic- 
tion tliat " consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious 
breach of trust." Not far from this venerable 
hall — betAveen this temple of freedom and the 
very court-house, to which the Senator [Mr. 
JoMEs] has referred — is the street where, in 1770, 
the first blood was spilt in conflict between Brit- 



sh troops and American citizens, and among the 
victims was one of that African race which you 
so much despise. Almost within sight is Bun- 
ker Hill : further off, Lexington and Concord. 
Amidst these scenes, a Slave-ITunter from Vir- 
ginia appears, and the disgusting rites begin by 
which a fellow-man is to be doomed to bondage. 
Sir, can you wonder that the people were 
moved ? 

■' Who can bo wise, amazed, temperate and fuiious, 
Loyal and neutral, in a moment ? No man." 

It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty 
executed, and that one of its servants perished 
in the effort. On these grounds the Senator from 
Tennessee charges Boston with fanaticisra. I ex- 
press no opinion on the conduct of individuals ; 
i)ut I do say, that the fanaticism which the Sena- 
tor condemns, is not new in Boston. It^is the 
same which opposed the execution of the Stamp 
Act, and finally secured its repeal. It is the same 
which opposed tlie Tea Tax. It is the fanaticism 
which finally triumphed on Bunker Hill. The 
Senator says that Boston is filled with traitors. 
That charge is not new. Boston, of old, was the 
home of Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now 
are those who are truly animated by the spirit of 
the American Revolution. In condemning them, 
in condemning Massachusetts, in condemning 
these remonstrants, you simply give a proper con- 
clusion to the utterance on this floor, that the 
Declaration of Independence is " a self-evident 
lie." 

Here I might leave the imputations on Massa- 
chusetts. But the case is stronger yet. I have 
referred to the Stamp Act. The parallel is of 
such aptness and imj)ortance, that, though on a 
former occasion I presented it to the Senate, I 
cannot forbear from pressing it again. As the 
precise character of this act may not be familiar, 
allow me to remind the Senate, that it was an 
attempt to draw money from the Colonies through 
a stamp tax, while the determination of certain 
questions of forfeiture under the statute was del- 
egated, not to the courts of common law, but to 
courts of admiralty, without trial by jury. This 
act was denounced in the Colonies at once on its 
jjassage, as contrary to the British Constitution, 
on two princijial grounds, identical in character 
with the two chief grounds on which the Slavo 
Act is now declared to be unconstitutional ; first, 
as an assumption by Parliament of jiowers not 
belonging to it, and an infraction of rights so- 
cured to the ('olonics ; and, secondly, as a denial 
of trial by jury in certain cases of properly. On 
these grounds the Stamp Act was held to bo an 
outrage. 

The Colonies were iiroused against it. Vir- 
ginia first declared herself by solemn resolutions, 
which the timid thought " treasonable; " yes, sir, 



"treasonable," even as that word is now applied 
to recent manifestations of opinion in Boston — 
even to the memorial of her twenty-nine hun- 
dred merchants. But these '' treasonable " reso- 
lutions soon found a response. New York fol- 
lowed. Massachusetts came next. In an address 
from the Legislature to the Governor, the true 
ground of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident 
with the two radical objections to the Slave 
Act, are clearly set forth, with the following 
pregnant conclusion : 

" We deeply regret that the Parliament has 
' seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act; 
'we flatter ourselves that the hardships of it will 
' shortly appear to them in such a light as shall 
' induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it ; in 
' the mean time, we must beg your Excellency to ex- 
' citse us from doing anything to assist in the execii- 
' tion of it." 

The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies 
by the Tories of that day, precisely as the uncon- 
stitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by im- 
perious numbers among us. Hutchinson, at that 
time Lieutenant Governor and judge in Massa- 
chusetts, wrote to Ministers in England : 

" The Stamp Act is received with as much de- 
' cency as could be expected. It leaves no room 
' for evasion, and will execute itself." 

Like the judges of our day, in charges to grand 
juries, he resolutely vindicated the act, and ad- 
monished " the jurors and the people " to obey. 
Like Governors in our day, Bernard, in his speech 
to the Legislature of Massachusetts, demanded 
unreasoning submission. "I shall not," says this 
British Governor, " enter into any disquisition of 
' the policy of the act. I have only to say it is an 
' act of the Parliament of Great Britain." Like 
marshals of our day, the officers of the customs 
are recorded as having made " application for a 
' military force to assist them in the execution of 
' their duty." The elaborate answer of Massa- 
chusetts — a paper which is one of the corner- 
stones of our history — drawn by Samuel Adams, 
was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel of wild 
enthusiasts," even as recent proceedings in Bos- 
ton, resulting in the memorial before you, have 
been characterized on this floor. Was I not right 
in adducing this parallel? 

The country was aroused against the execution 
of the act. And here Boston took the lead. In 
formal instructions to her Representatives, adopt- 
ed unanimously in town meeting at Faneuil Hall, 
the following rule of conduct was prescribed : 

" We, therefore, think it our indispensable du- 
' ty, in justice to ourselves and posterity, as it is 
' our undoubted privilege, in the most open and 
' unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to 
' declare our greatest dissatisfaction with this 
' law. And we think it incumbent upon you by no 
' means to join in any public measures for counte- 
' nancing and assisting in the execution of the same. 
' But to use your best endeavors in the General 
' Assembly to have the inherent inalienable rights 
' of the people of this province asserted, and vin- 
' dicated, and left upon the public record, that 
' posterity may never have reason to charge the 
' present times with the guilt of tamely giving 
' them away." 



The opposition spread and deepened, and one 
of its natural tendencies was to outbreak and 
violence. On one occasion in Boston it shoved 
itself in the lawlessness of a mob, of a most for- 
midable character, even as is now charged. Lib- 
erty, in her struggles, is too often driven to force. 
But the town, at a public meeting in Faneuil 
Hall, called without delay, on the motion of the 
opponents of the Stamp Act, with James Otis as 
chairman, condemned the outrage. Eager in 
hostility to the execution of the act, Boston 
cherished municipal order, and constantly dis- 
countenanced all tumult, violence, and illegal 
proceedings. On these two grounds she then 
stood; and her position was widely recognised. 
In reply, March 27, 17G6, to an address from the 
inhabitants of Plymouth, her own consciousness 
of duty done is thus expressed : 

" If the inhabitants of Boston have taken the 
' legal and icarrantable measures to prevent that mis- 
' fortune of all others the most to be dreaded, the ez- 
' ecution of the Stamp Act, and, as a necessary 
' means of preventing it, have made any spirited 
' applications for opening the custom houses and 
' courts of justice ; if, at the same time, they have 
' borne their testimony against outrageous tumults 
' a?}d illegal proceedings, and given any example of 
' the love of peace and good order, next to the 
' consciousness of having done their duty is the 
' satisfaction of meeting with the approbation of 
' any of their fellow-countrymen." 

Thus was the Stamp Act annulled, even before 
its actual repeal, which was pressed with assidu- 
ity, by petition and remonstrance, on the next 
meeting of Parliament. Among the potent influ- 
ences was the entire concurrence of the mer- 
chants, and especially a remonstrance against 
the Stamp Act by the merchants of New York — 
like that now made against the Slave Act by the 
merchants of Boston. Some asked at first only 
for its modification. Even James Otis began 
with this moderate desire. The King himself 
showed a disposition to yield to this extent. But 
Franklin, who was then in England, when asked 
whether the Colonies would su\)mit to the act, if 
mitigated in certain particulars, replied : " No, 
never, unless compelled by force of arms." Then 
it was, that the great Commoner, William Pitt, 
in an ever-memorable speech, uttered words 
which fitly belong to this occasion. He said: 

" Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to 
' sedition in America. They have spoken their 
' sentiments with freedom against this unhappy 
' act, and that freedom has become their crime. 
' Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this 
' House imputed as a crime. But the imputation 
' shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean 
' to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid 
' to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gen- 
' tleman who calumniates it might and ought to 
' have profited. The gentleman tells us America 
' is obstinate ; America is almost in open rebel- 
' lion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three 
' millions ofslaves, so dead to all the feelings of lib- 
' erty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would 
' have been fit instruments to make slaves of all 
' the rest. I would not debate a particular point 
' of law with the gentleman ; but I draw my 



d 



' ideas of freedom from the vital powers of the 
' British Constitution — not from the crude and 
' f«llacLou5 notions too much relied upon, as if we 
' were but in the morning of liberty. I can ac- 
' knowledge no veneration for any procedure, law, 
' or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason and 
' the first elements of our Constitution. The 
' Americans have been wronged. They have been 
' driven to madness. Upon the whole, I will beg 
' leave to tell the House what is really my opin- 
' ion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed, ab- 
' solutely, totally, and immediately, and that the 
' reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was 
' founded on an erroneous principle." 

Thus spoke this great orator, at the time tute- 
lary guardian of American liberty. He was not 
unheeded. Within less than a year from its ori- 
ginal passage, the Stamp Act — assailed as uncon- 
stitutional on the precise grounds which we now 
occupy in assailing the Slave Act- — was driven 
from the statute-book. 

But, sir, the Stamp Act was, at most, an in- 
fringement of civil liberty only, not of personal 
liberty. It touched questions of property only, 
but not the personal liberty of any man. Under 
it, no freeman could be seized as a slave. There 
was an unjust tax of a few pence, with the 
chances of amercement by a single judge without 
jury ; but by this statute no person could be de- 
prived of that vital right of all, which is to other 
rights as the soul to the body — the right of a man 
to himself. As liberty is more than property, us 
man is above the beasts that perish, as heaven is 
higher than earth, so are the rights assailed by 



an American Congress above those once assailed 
by the British Parliament ; and just in this propor- 
tion must be our condemnation of the Slave Act 
by the side of the Stamp Act. And this will yet 
be declared by history. 

I call upon you, then, to receive the memorial, 
and hearken to its prayer. All other memorials 
asking for changes in existing legislation are 
treated with respect, promptly referred, and acted 
upon. This should not be an exception. The 
memorial simply asks the repeal of an obnoxious 
statute, which is entirely within the competency 
of Congress. It proceeds from a large number of 
respectable citizens whoso autograph signatures 
are attached. It is brief and respectful in form ; 
and, in its very brevity, shows that spirit of free- 
dom which should awaken a generous response. 
In refusing to receive it or refer it, according to 
the usage of the Senate, or in treating it with any 
indignity, you offer an affront, not only to these 
numerous petitioners, but also to the great right 
of petition, which is here never more sacred than 
when exercised in behalf of freedom against an 
obnoxious statute. Permit me to add, that by 
this course you provoke the very spirit which you 
would repress. There is a certain plant which is 
said to grow when trodden upon. It remains to 
be seen if the Boston i^etitioners have not some- 
thing of this quality. But this I know, sir, that 
the Slave Act, like vice, is of so hideous a mien, 
that " to be hated it needs only to be seen ; " and 
the occurrences of this day will make it visilde 
and palpable to the people in new forms of in- 
justice. 



SECOND SPEECH. 



[Mr. SUMNER was followed in the debate, by 
Mr. Butler of South Carolina, Mr. Mason of 
Virginia, Mr. Pettit of Indiana, Mr. Dixon of 
Kentucky, Mr. Mallory of Florida, and Mr. Clay 
of Alabama, and, on the 28th June, obtained 
the floor, and spoke as follows :] 

Mr. President : Since I had the honor of ad- 
dressing the Senate two days ago, various Sena- 
tors have spoken. Among these, several have 
alluded to me in terms clearly beyond the sanc- 
tions of parliamentary debate. Of this I make 
no comjjlaint, though, for the honor of the Senate 
at least, it were well that it were otherwise. If 
to them it seems fit, courteous, parliamentary, 

" to unpack the heart with words, 

And fall a cursing, like a very drab, 
A scullion," 

I will not interfere with the enjoyment which 
they find in such exposure of themselves. They 
have certainly given us a taste of their characters. 
Two of them, the Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Butler] who sits immediately before me, 
and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] who 
sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their 
heads are amply crowned by time. They did not 
speak from any ebuUiiion of youth, but from the 
confirmed temper of age. It is melancholy to 
believe that, in this debate, they showed them- 
selves as they are. It were charitable to believe 
that they are in reality better than they sliowed 
themselves. 

I think, sir, that I am not the only person on 
this floor, who, in lately listening to these two 
self-confident champions of the peculiar fanaticism 
of the South, was reminded of the striking words 
by Jefferson, picturing the influence of slaverj', 
where he says, " The whole commerce between 
' master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the 
' most boisterous passions, the most unremitting 
' despotism on the one part, and degrading sub- 
' mission on the other. Our children see this, and 
' learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative ani- 
' mal. The parent storms. The child looks on, 
' catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the 
' same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives 
' loose to his worst passions, and, thus nursed, ed- 
' ucated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot 
' but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. 
' The man must he a prodigy who can retain his 
' manners and morals nndqwaved bi/ such circiim- 
' stances." Nobody who witnessed the Senator 
from South Carolina or tlie Senator from Vir- 
ginia in this debate will place either of them 
among the "prodigies " described by Jefferson. As 
they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seem- 



ed to them, in the characteristic fantasy of the 
moment, a plantation well stocked with slaves, 
over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. 
Sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these things. 
It is not according to my nature. Bear witness, 
that I do it only in just self-defence against the 
unprecedented assaults and provocations of this 
debate. And in doing it, I desire to warn cer- 
tain Senators, that if they expect, by any ardor 
of menace or by any tyrannical frown, to shake 
my fixed resolve, they expect a vain thing. 

There was, perhaps, little that fell from these 
two champions, as the fit was on, which deserves 
reply. Certainly not the hard words they used 
so readily and congenially. The veteran Senator 
from Virginia [Mr. Mason] complained that I 
had characterized one of his " constituents," a 
person who went all the way from Virginia to 
Boston in pursuit of a slave, as a Slave-Hunter. 
Sir, I choose to call things by their right names. 
White I call white, and black I call black. And 
where a person degrades himself to the work of 
chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspira- 
tion of freedom and the guidance of the north 
star, has sought a freeman's home far away from 
the cofQe and the chain, that person, whomsoever 
he may be, I call a Slave-Hunter. If the Senator 
from Virginia, who professes nicety of speech, 
will give me any term which more precisely de- 
scribes such a person, I will use it. Until then I 
shall continue to use the language which seems 
to me so apt. But this very sensibility of the 
veteran Senator at a just term, which truly de- 
picts an odious character, shows a shame in 
which I exult. It was said by one of the philos- 
ophers of antiquity, that the blush is a sign of 
virtue; and permit me to add, that, in this vio- 
lent sensibility, I recognise a blush mantling the 
cheek of the Senator, which even his plantation 
manners cannot conceal. 

And the venerable Senator from South Caro- 
lina, too, [Mr. Butler;] he has betraj-ed his 
sensibility. Here let me say that this Senator 
knows well that I always listen with peculiar 
pleasure to his racy and exuberant speech, as it 
gurgles forth — sometimes tinctured by generous 
ideas — except when, forgetful of history, and in 
defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend that 
which is obviously indefensible. This Senator 
was disturbed, when to his inquiry, personally, 
pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, 
whether I would join in returning a fellow-man 
to slavery, I exclaimed, " Is thy servant a dng, 
that he should do this thing?" In fitful phrases, 
which seemed to come from the unconscious ex- 
citement so common with the Senator, he shot 
forth various cries about " dogs ; " and, among 
other things, asked if there was any " dog " in 



8 



the Constitution ? The Senator did not seem to 
bear in mind, tlirongh the heady currents of that 
moment, that, by the false interpretation he has 
given to the Constitution, he has helped to nur- 
ture there a whole kennel of Carolina blood- 
hounds, trained, with savage jaws and insatiable 
sceut, fur the hunt of flying bondmen. No, sir. 
I do not believe that there is any " kennel of 
bloodhounds," or even any " dog," in the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

But, Mr. President, since the brief response 
which I made to the inquiry of the Senator, and 
which leaped unconsciously to m}- lips, has drawn 
upon me various attacks, all marked by grossness 
of language and manner; since I have been 
charged with openly declaring my purpose to vi- 
olate the Constitution, and to break the oath 
which I have taken at that desk, I shall be par- 
doned for showing simply how a few plain words 
will put all this down. The authentic report in 
the Globe shows what was actually said. The 
report in the Sentinel is substantially the same ; 
and one of the New York papers, which has been 
put into my hands since I entered the Senate 
Chamber to-day, under its telegraphic head, 
states the incident with substantial accuracy, 
though it omits the personal individual appeal 
addressed to me by the Senator, and which is 
preserved in the Globe. Here is the New York 
report: 

" Mr. BcTLER. I would like to ask the Senator, 
' if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, 
' would Massachusetts execute the constitutional 
' requirements, and send back to the South the 
' absconding slaves? 

" Mr. ScMNER. Do you ask if I would send back 
' a slave? 

" Mr. Butler. Why, yes. 

" Mr. Sumner. " Is thy servant a dog, that he 
' should do this thing?" 

To any candid mind, either of these reports ren- 
ders anything further superfluous. But the Sen- 
ators who have been so swift in misrepresenta- 
tion deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done. 

Now, sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the 
authoritative words of Andrew Jackson, in his 
memorable veto, in 1832, of the Bank of the Uni- 
ted States. To his course, at that critical time, 
were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court 
and /iw oa(h to support the Constitution. Here is 
his triumphant reply : 

" If tbc opinion of the Supreme Court eovers 
'the whole ground of this act, it ought not to 
'control the co-ordinate authorities of this Gov- 
'ernment. The Congress, the Executive, and the 
'Court, must each for itself be guided by its own 
'opinion of the Constitution. Each public ojjirer, 

• who lakes an oath to sujiport the Coniftitution,' 
■ twears that he uiU tupport it an he tmdersland* it, 
'and not as it is under.stood b)/ others. It is as 

much the duty of the House of Repre.'^entatives, 

• of tiie Senate, and of the President, to decide 
'upon the constitutionality of any bill or rcsolu- 
' tion, wliich may be presented to them for pas- 
' sage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges 
' when it may be brought before them for judicial 
'decision. The authority of the Supremo Court 

mast not, therefore, be permitted to control the 



' Congress or the Executive, when acting in their 

' legiiilative capacities, but to have only such in- 
' fluence as the force of their reasoning may de- 
' serve." 

Mark these words, and let them sink into your 
minds. " Each public oflBcer, who takes an oath 
to support the Constitution, swears that he will 
support it as he understands it, and not as it ia 
understood by others." Yes, sir, as hk under- 
stands IT, and not as it is understood by others. 
Does any Senator here dissent from this rule ? 
Does the Senator from Virginia? Does the Sen- 
ator from South Carolina? [Here Mr. Sumner 
paused, but there was no reply.] At all events, 
I accept the rule as just and reasonable ; in har- 
mony, too, let me assert, with that libertj'- which 
scorns the dogma of passive obedience, and asserts 
the inestimable right of private judgment, wheth- 
er in religion or politics. In swearing to support 
the Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I 
did not swear to support it as t/ou understand it. 
Oh, no, sir. Or as the Senator from Virginia un- 
derstands it. Oh, no, sir. Or as the Senator 
from South Carolina understands it, with a ken- 
nel of bloodhounds; or, at least, a "dog" in it, 
" pawing to get free its hinder parts," in pursuit 
of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to sup- 
port the Constitution as I understand it ; nor more, 
nor less. 

Now, I will not occupy your time, nor am I so 
disposed at this moment, nor does the occasion 
require it, by entering upon any minute criticism 
of the clai^e in the Constitution touching the 
surrender of " fugitives from labor." A few 
words only are needful. Assuming, sir, in the 
face of commanding rules of interpretation, all 
leaning towards freedom, that in the evasive lan- 
guage of this clause, paltering in a double sense, 
the words employed can be judicially regarded 
as justly ap[ilicablc to fugitive slaves, which, as 
you ought to know, sir, is often most strenuous- 
ly and conscientiously denied — thus sjjonging 
the whole clause out of existence, except as a 
provision for the return of persons actually bound 
by lawful contract, but on which I now express 
no opinion ; assuming, I say, this interpretation, 
so hostile to freedom, and derogatory to the 
members of the Federal Convention, who solemn- 
ly declared that they would not yield any sanc- 
tion to slavery, or admit into the Constitution 
the idea of property in man ; assuming, I repeat, 
an interpretation which every ])rinciple of the 
common law, claimed by our fathers as their 
birthright, must disown ; admitting, for the mo- 
ment only, and with shame, that the Constitu- 
tion of the United States has any words, which, 
in any legal intendment, can constrain fugitive 
slaves, then I desire to say, that, as I understand 
the Constitution, this clause does not impose 
upon mt, as a Senator or citizen, any obligation 
to take i)art, <lirectly or indirectly, in the surren- 
der of a fugitive slave. 

Sir, as a Senator, I have taken at your desk 
the oath to support the Constitution, as I under- 
stand it. And understanding it as I do, I am 
bound by that oath, Mr. President, to oppose 
all enactments by Congress on the subject of 
fugitive slaves, as a flagrant violation of the 



Constitution; especially must I oppose the last 
actas a tyrannical usurpation, kindred in char- 
acter to the Stamp Act, -which our fathers in- 
dignantly refused to olDey. Here my duties, 
under the oath which I have taken as a Senator, 
end. There is nothing beyond. They are all ab- 
sorbed in the constant, inflexible, righteous obli- 
gation to oppose ererj' exercise by Congress of 
any power over the subject. In no respect, by 
that oath, can I be constrained to duties in other 
capacities, or as a simple citizen, especially when 
revolting to my conscience. Now, in this inter- 
pretation of the Constitution I may be wrong ; 
others may differ from me ; the Senator from 
Virginia may differ from me, and the Senator 
from South Carolina also ; and they will, each 
and all, act according to their respective under- 
standings. For myself, I shall act according to 
mine. On this explicit statement of my constitu- 
tional obligations, I stand, as upon a living rock, 
and, to the inquiry, in whatever form addressed 
to my personal responsibility, whether I would 
aid, directly or indirectly, in reducing or surren- 
dering a fellow-man to bondage, I reply again, 
" Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this 
thing ? " 

And, sir, looking round upon this Senate, I 
might ask fearlessly, how many there are, even 
in this body, if, indeed, there be a single Sena- 
tor, who would stoop to any such service ? Un- 
til some one rises and openly confesses his will- 
ingness to become a Slave-Hunter, I will not 
believe there can be one. [Here Mr. Sumner 
paused, but nobody rose.] And yet honorable 
and chivalrous Senators have rushed headlong 
to denounce me because I openly declared my 
repudiation of a service at which every manly 
bosom must revolt. " Sire, I have found in 
Bayonne brave soldiers and good citizens, but 
not one executioner," was the noble utterance of the 
Governor of that place to Charles IX of France, 
in response to the royal edict for the massacre of 
St. Bartholomew ; and such a spirit, I trust, will 
yet animate the people of this country, when 
pressed to the service of '' dogs I " 

To that other question, which has been pro- 
posed, whether Massachusetts, by State laws, 
will carry out the offensive clause in the Consti- 
tution, according to the understanding of the 
venerable Senator from South Carolina, I reply 
that Massachusetts, at all times, has been ready 
to do her duty under the Constitution, as she 
understands it ; and, I doubt not, will ever con- 
tinue of this mind. More than this I cannot 
say. 

In quitting this topic, I cannot forbear to re- 
mark that the assault on me for my disclaimer of 
all constitutional obligation, resting upon me as 
a Senator or citizen, to aid in making a man a 
slave, or in surrendering him to slavery, conies 
with an ill grace from the veteran Senator from 
Virginia, a State which, by its far-famed resolu- 
tions of nos, assumed to determine its constitu- 
tional obligations, even to the extent of opcnh' 
declaring two different acts of Congress null and 
void ; and it comes also with an ill grace from , 
the venerable Senator from South Carolina, a 
State which, in latter days, has arrayed itself 



openly against the Federal authorities, and which 
threatens nullification as often as babies cry. 

_ Surely the Senator from South Carolina, with 
his silver-white locks, would have hesitated to 
lead this assault upon me, had he not, for the 
moment, been entirely oblivious, of the history of 
the State which he represents. Not many years 
have passed since an incident occurred at Charles- 
ton, in South Carolina — not at Boston, in Massa- 
chusetts — which ought to be remembered. The 
postmaster of that place, acting under a control- 
ling Public Opinion there, informed the head of 
his Department at Washington that he bad deter- 
mined to suppress all anti-slavery publications, 
and requested instructions for the "future. Thus, 
in violation of the laws of the land, the very 
mails were rifled, and South Carolina smiled ap- 
probation of the outrage. But this is not all. 
The Postmaster General, Mr. Kendall, after pru- 
dently alleging that, as he had not seen the pa- 
pers in question, he could not give an opinion of 
their character, proceeded to say, that he had 
been informed that they were incendiary, inflam- 
matory, and insurrectionary, and then announced : 
" By no act or direction of mine, official or pri- 
' vate. could I be induced to aid knowingly in 
' giving circulation to papers of this description, 
' directly or indirectly. We oive an obligation to 
' the laws, but a higher one to the communities in 
' which we live ; and if the former be perverted 
' to destroy the latter, il is j^atriotisrn to disregard 
' the?n. Entertaining these views, I cannot sanc- 
' tion, and will not condemn, the step you have 
' taken." 

Such was the approving response of the Nation- 
al Government to the Postmaster of Charleston, 
when, for the sake of Slavery, and without any 
constitutional scruple, he set himself against an 
acknowledged law of the land; yet the venerable 
Senator from South Carolina now presumes to 
denounce me, when, for the sake of freedom, and 
in the honest interpretation of my constitutional 
obligations, I decline an offensive service. 

But there is another incident in the history of 
South Carolina, which, as a loyal son of Massa- 
chusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now in 
judgment against the venerable Senator. Massa- 
chusetts had commissioned a distinguished gen- 
tleman, of blameless life and eminent professional 
qualities, who served with honor in the other 
House, [Hon. Samuel Hoar,] to reside at 
Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard 
the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed 
on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so 
gross in its provisions tnat an eminent character 
of South Carolina, a judge of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, Hon. William Johnson, had 
characterized it as "trampling on the Constitu- 
tion," and " a direct attack upon the sovereignty 
of the United States." Massachusetts had read 
in the Constitution a clause closely associated 
with that touching " fugitives from labor," to the 
following effect : '• The citizens of each State shall 
be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citi- 
zens in the several States," and supposed that 
this would j-et be recognised by South Carolina. 
But she was mistaken. Her venerable represent- 
ative, an unarmed old man, with hair as silver- 



10 



white almost as that of the Senator before me, 
was beset in Charleston by a "respectable" mob, 
prevented from enterinj^ upon his duties, and 
driven from the State ; while the Legislature 
stepped in to sanction this shameless, lawless 
act, by placing on tlie statute book an order for 
his expulsion. And yet, sir, the excitable Senator 
from South Carolina is fired l)y the fancied delin- 
quencies of Massachusetts towards Sluve-IIunt- 
ers, and also by my own refusal to render them 
any " aid or comfort ; " he shoots questions in 
volleys, assumes to measure our duties l)y his 
understanding, and ejaculates a lecture at .Massa- 
chusetts and myself Sir, before tliat venerable 
Senator again ventures thus, let him return to his 
own State, seamed all over with the scars of nul- 
lification, and first lecture there. Aye, sir. let him 
look into his own heart, and lecture to himself. 

But enough tor the ])resent on theextent of 
my constitutional obligations to become a Slave- 
Hunter. There are, however, yet other things 
in the assault of the reneraljle Senator, which. 
fi)r the sake of truth, in just defence of Mas- 
sachusetts, and in honor of freedom, shall not 
be left unanswered. Alluding to those days 
when Massachusetts was illustrated by Otis, 
Hancock, and "the brace of Adamses;" when 
Faneuil Hall sent forth echoes of liberty which 
resounded even to Soutli Carolina, and the very 
stone* in the streets of Boston rose in mutiny 
against tyranny, the Senator with the silver-white 
locks, in the very ecstacy of slavery, broke forth 
in the ejaculation that Massachusetts was then 
"slaveholding;" and he presumed to hail these 
patriots as representatives of " hardy, slavehold- 
ing .Massachusetts." Sir, I repel the imputation. 
It is true that Massachusetts was "hardy;" but 
she was not, in any just scn.^c, "slaveholding." 
And had she been so, she could not have been 
"hardy." The two characteristics are inconsist- 
ent as weakness and strength, as sickness and 
health — I had almost said, as death and life. 

Tlie Senator opens a page, wliich I would will- 
ingly present. Sir, slavery never flourished in 
Massachusetts ; nor did it ever [irevail there at 
ftny time, even in early Colonial days, to such a 
degree as to be a distinctive feature in her pow- 
erful civilization. Iler few slaves were merely 
for a term of years, or for life. If, in point of 
fact, their issue was sometimes held in bondage, 
it was never by sanction of an}' statute or law of 
Colony or Commonwealth. Such ims been the 
solemn judgment of her Supreme Court. (Laucs- 
boro' vs. W'pKtfifId, 16 Mass., 74.) In all her an- 
nals, no person was ever born a slave on the soil 
of Massachusetts. This, oi itself, is a response 
to the imputation of the Senator. 

A benign and brilliant a(rt of her Legislature, 
as far back as 1G4''>, shows her sensibility on this 
sulyect. A Boston ship lunl brought home two 
negroes, seixcd on the coast of Guinea. Thus 
spoke Massachusetts : 

" The General Couit, conceiving themselves 
' bonml by the first oj)portunity to bear witness 
' against the heinous and crying sin of inan-steal- 
' ing, also to prescribe such timely redress for 
' what is past, and tuch a law/or thr/uliirr a.i may 
' sufficiently deter all thote belonyivj to u», to have to 



' do in such vile and most odious conduct, justly ab- 
' horred of all yood and just men, do order that the 
' negro interpreter, with others unlawfully taken, 
' be, by the first opportunity, at tlie charge of the 
' country, ior the j)resent, sent to his native 
' country of Guinea, and a letter with him of the 
' indignation of the Court thereabout and justice 
' thereof" 

The Colony that could issue this noble decree 
was inconsistent with itself, when it allowed its 
rocky face to be jjressed by the footsteps of a 
single slave. But a righteous public opinion 
early and constantly set its face against slavery. 
As early as 1701 a vote was entered upon the re- 
cords of Boston to the following effect : "The Rep- 
resentatives are desired to promote the cncour.ag- 
ing the bringing of white servants, and to put a pe- 
riod to neyroea being .ilavcu." Perhaps, in all history, 
this is the earliest testimony from any official 
body against negro slavery, and I thank God that 
it came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a 
heavy duty was imposed upon every negro im- 
ported into the province; in 1712 the importa- 
tion of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly 
forbidden ; but the general subject of Slavery 
attracted little attention till the beginning of the 
controversy, which ended in the Revolution ; 
when the rights of the blacks were blended by 
all true patriots with those of the whites. Spar- 
ing all unnecessary details, suffice it to say, that, 
as early as 17(3!), one of the courts of Massachu- 
setts, anticipating, by several years, the renown- 
ed judgment in Somersett'scase, established with- 
in its jurisdiction the j)rinciple of emancipation; 
and, under its touch of magic power, changed a 
slave into a freeman. Similar decisions followed 
in other places. In 177G, the whole number of 
blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over 
'' hardy " Massachusetts, was five thousand two 
hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as 
'one is to sixty-five; while in " slaveholding" 
I South Carolina the number of negro slaves, at 
that time, was not far from one hundred thou- 
' sand, being nearly one slave for every freeman, 
' thus rendering that Colony anything l)Ut "har- 
I dy." At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of 
Vorktown had led the way to that peace which 
I set its seal upon our National Independence, 
' Massachusetts, animated by the struggles of the 
Revolution, and filled by the sentiments of Free- 
dom, placed in front of her Bill of Rights the 
emphatic word.?, that "all men are born free 
and equal," and by this declaration cxtermiinxted 
every vestige of slaveiy within her borders. 
' All hail, then, to Mas^im Iniselts, the just and 
generous ConimonwcaltL in wiiose behalf I have 
' the honor to si)eak. 

• Thus, sir, does the venerable Senator err when 
, he [iresumes to vouch Massacliusetts for slavery, 
' and to associate this odious institution with the 
names of her great patriots. 

' Mr. ROCKWELL. Will my honorable col- 
league allow me to send to the Chair, and have 
read in this coinieclion with his pres<'nt remarks, 

j n passnge from (Iriiham's History of the United 
States 7 

Mr. Sr.M.N'KF.. I do not know the passage to 



11 



which my colleague refers, but I welcome any 
interruption from him. 

The Secretary read as follows : 

" Among other subjects of dispute with the 
' British Government and its officers, was one 
' more creditable to Massachusetts than even her 
' magnanimous concern for the liberty of her cit- 
' izens and their fellow-colonists. Negro slavery 
' still subsisted in every one of the American 
' provinces, and the unhappy victims of this yolse 
' were rapidly multiplied by the progressive ex- 
' tension of the slave trade. Georgia, the young- 
' est of all the States, contained already fourteen 
' thousand negroes ; and in the course of the 
' present year alone, more than six thousand 
' were imported into South Carolina. In New 
' England, the number of slaves was very insig- 
' nificant, and their treatment so mild and hu- 
' mane as in some measure to veil from the pub- 
' lie eye the iniquity of their bondage. But, the 
' recent discussions with regard to liberty and 
' the rights of human nature, were calculated to 
' awaken in generous minds a juster impression 
' of negro slavery ; and during the latter part of 
' Governor Bernard's administration, a bill pro- 
' hibitory of all traffic in negroes was passed by 
' the Massachusetts Assembly. Bernard, however, 
' in conformity with his instructions from the 
' Crown, refused to affirm this law ; and thus 
' opposed himself to the virtue as well as to the 
' liberty of the people whom he governed. 

" On three subsequent occasions, laws abolish- 
' ing the slave trade were passed by the same 
' Assembly during Hutchinson's administration ; 
' but all were in like manner negatived by the 
' Governor. And yet it was at this very period, 
' when Britain permitted her merchants annually 
' to make slaves of more than fifty thousand men, 
' and refused to permit her Colonies to decline a 
' participation in this injustice, that her orators, 
' poets, and statesmen, loudly celebrate the gen- 
' erosity of English virtue, in suffering no slaves 
' to exist on English ground, and the transcend- 
' ent equity of her judicial tribunals in libera- 
' ting one negro who had been carried there. 
' Though Massachusetts was thus prevented from 
' abolishing the slave trade, the relative discus- 
' sious that took place were by no means unpro- 
' ductive of good. A great amelioration became 
' visible in the condition of all the negroes in the 
' province ; and most of the proprietors gave lib- 
' erty to their slaves. This just action — for such, 
' and such only, it dcsei-ves to be termed — has 
' obtained hitherto scarcely any notice from man- 
' kind, while the subsequent and similar conduct 
' of the Quakers in Pennsylvania has been cele- 
' brated with warmth and general encomium. So 
' capricious is the distribution of fame, and so 
* much advantage does the reputation of virtue 
' derive from alliance with sectarian spirit and 
' interest." 

Mr. SUMNER. I am obliged to my colleague. 
The extract is in substantial conformity with 
clear historic truth, which the Senator from 
South Carolina, in one of his oratorical effluxes, 
has impeached. But the venerable Senator errs 



yet more, if possible, when he attributes to 
"slaveholding" communities a leading part in 
those contributions of arms and treasure by 
which independence was secured. Here are his 
exact words, as I find them in the Globe, revised 
by himself: 

" Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of 
' Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by 
' Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from 
' whom was it answered ? The answer is found 
' in the acts of slaveholding States — anhnis opi- 
' busque parati. Yes, sir, the independence of 
' America, to maintain republican liberty, was 
' won by the arms and treasure, by the patriot- 
' ism and good faith of slaveholding communi- 
' ties." 

Mark the language, sir, as emphasized by him- 
self Surely, the Senator with his silver-white 
locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska 
bill, cannot stand here and proclaim "the good- 
faith of slaveholding communities," except in 
irony. Yes, sir, in irony. And let me add, that 
when this Senator presumes to say that American 
Independence " was won by the arms and treas- 
ure of slaveholding communities," he speaks either 
in irony or in ignorance. 

The question which the veteran Senator from 
South Carolina here opens, by his vaunt, I have 
no desire to discuss ; but, since it is presented, I 
confront it at once. This is not the first time, 
during my brief service here, that this Senator 
has sought on this floor to provoke a comparison 
between slaveholding communities and the free 
States. 

Mr. BUTLER, (from his seat.) You cannot 
quote a single instance in which I have done it. 
I have always said I thought it was in bad taste, 
and I have never attempted it. 

Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon. I 
always listen to him, and I know whereof I affirm. 
He has profusely dealt in it. I allude now only 
to a single occasion. In his speech on the Ne- 
braska bill, running through two days, it was one 
of his commonplaces. In that he openly present- 
ed a contrast between the free States and " slave- 
holding communities," in certain essential fea- 
tures of civilization, and directed shafts at Mas- 
sachusetts, which called to his feet my distin- 
guished colleague at that time, [Mr. Everett,] 
and which more than once compelled me to take 
the floor. And now, sir, the venerable Senator, 
not rising from his seat and standing openly be- 
fore the Senate, ventures to deny that he has 
dealt in such comparisons. 

Mr. BUTLER. Will the Senator allow me ? 

Mr. SUMNER. Certainly; I yield the floor to 
the Senator. 

Mr. BUTLER. Whenever that speech is read— 
and I wish the Senator had read it before he 
commented on it with a good deal of rhetorical 
enthusiasm — it will be found that I was particu- 
lar not to wound the feelings of the Northern 
people who were sympathizing with us in the 
great movement to remove odious distinctions. 
I was careful to say nothing that would provoke 
invidious comparisons ; and when that speech is 
read, notwithstanding the vehement assertion of 
the honorable Senator, he will find that when 1 



12 



quoted the laws of Massachu!«etts, jiarliculurly 
one act which I termed the toticjs quolics act, by 
which every uegro was whipped every time he 
came into Massachusetts, I quoted them with a 
view to show, not a contrast between Soutii Car- 
olina and Massachusetts, but to show that, in the 
whole of this country, from the beginning to this 
time — even in my own State, I made uo excep- 
tion — pulilic opinion had undergone a change, 
and that it had undergone the same change in 
Massachusetts, for at one time they did not re- 
gard this institution of slavery with the same 
odium that they do at this time. That was the 
purpose ; and I challenge the Senator as an ora- 
tor of fairness to look at it, and see if it is not so. 

Mr. SUMNER. Has the Senator done? 

Mr. BUTLEIl. I may not be done presently; 
but that is the purport of that speech. 

Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator refer to his 
own speech ? He now admits that, under the 
guise of an argument, he did draw attention to 
•what he evidently regarded an odious law of Mas- 
sachusetts. And, sir, I did not forget that, in 
doing this, there was, at the time, an apology 
which iU-conccaled the sting. But let that jiass. 
The Senator is strangely oblivious of the statisti- 
cal contrasts, which he borrowed from the speech 
of a member of the other House, and which, at 
his request, were read by a Senator before him 
on this floor. The Senator, too, is strangely ob- 
livious of yet another imputation, which, at the 
very close of his speech, he shot as a Parthian 
arrow at Massachusetts. It is he, then, who is 
the offender; and uo hardihood of denial can 
extricate him. For myself, sir, I understand the 
sensibilities of Senators from slaveholding com- 
munities, and would not wound them by a super- 
fluous word. Of slavery I speak stronglj', as I 
must ; but thus far, even at the expense of my 
argument, I have avoided the contrasts, founded 
on details of figures and facts, which are so ob- 
vious between the free States and " slaveliolding 
communities ; " especially have I shunned all al- 
lusion to South Carolina. But the venerable 
Senator, to whose discretion that State has in- 
trusted its interests here, will not allow me to be 
still. 

God forbid that I should do injustice to South 
Carolina. 1 know well the gallantry of many of 
her sons. I know the response which she made 
to the appeal of Boston for union against the 
Stamp Act^ — the fugitive slave act of that day — 
by the pen of Christopher Gadsden. And 1 re- 
member with sorrow that this patriot was obliged 
to confess, at the time, her " weakness in having 
such a number of slaves," though it is to his 
credit that he rec(jgnised slavery as a " crime." 
GJancroft's History of United States, vol. .'J, page 
42G.) I have no pleasure in dwelling on the hu- 
miliations of South tJaroIina; I do not desire to 
exfjosc her sores ; I would not lay bare her na- 
kedness. But tiie Senator, in his vaunt for 
"slaveholding communities," has made a claim 
for slavery which is so incijnsistent with history, 
and so derogatory to freedom, that I cannot allow 
it to pass unanswered. 

This, sir, is not the first time, even during my 
little experience here, that the same claim has 



been made on this floor; and this seems more 
astonishing, because the archives of the country 
furnish such ample and undoubted materials for 
its refutation. The question of the comparative 
contributions of men by different States and sec- 
tions of the country in the war of the Revolution, 
was brought forward as early as 1790, in the first 
Congress under the Constitution, in the animated 
and protracted debate on the assumption of State 
debts V)y the Union. On this occation Fisher 
Ames, a Representative from ilassachusetts, mem- 
orable for his classic clotjuence, moved a call 
upon the War Department for the number of men 
furnished by each State to the Revolutionary ar- 
mies. This motion, though vehemently opposed, 
was carried by a small majority. Shortly after- 
wards, the answer to the call was received from 
the Department, at that time ander the charge 
of General Knox. This answer, which is one of 
the documents of our history, places beyond 
cavil or criticism the exact contribution in arms 
of each State. Here it is: (^American Archires.) 

Statemenl of the numher of troops and militia fur- 
niahed by the several Slates, for the support of the 
Revolutionary war, from 1775 to 1783, inclusive. 



Northern 
States. 
New Hampshire 
Massachusetts 
Rhode Island 
Connecticut 
New York 
Pennsylvania 
New Jersey 



(H B » 

xi a o 
s us o 



^ .5 5j 






3 a 



12,496 2,003 
67,937 15,155 
5^908 4,284 



32,039 
17,781 
25,608 
10,727 



7,792 
3,312 
7,357 
6,055 



14,598 
83,092 
10,192 
39,831 
21,093 
32,965 
16,782 



c -5 a 

O M 



7,300 
9,500 
1,500 
3,000 
8,750 
2,000 
2,500 



Total 


172,496 


46,048 


218,553 


30,950 


Southern 










States. 










Delaware 


2,387 


376 


2,763 


1,000 


Maryland 


13,912 


5,464 


19,376 


4,000 


Virginia 


26,672 


4,163 


30,835 


21,880 


North Carolina 


7,263 


2,716 


9,969 


12,000 


Soutli Carolina 


5.508 


- 


5,508 


28,000 


Georgia 


2',679 


- 


2,679 


9,930 



Total 



58,421 12,719 71,130 70,810 



It should be understood that, at this time, there 
was but little difference in numbers between the 
population of the Southern States and that of the 
Northern States. By the census of 1790, the 
Southern had a jjopulation of 1,956,354; the 
Northern had a poi)ulation of 1,968,455. But not- 
withstanding this comp.-irative equality of popu- 
lation in the two sections, the North furnished 
vastly more men than the South. 

Of continental troops, the Southern States fur- 
nished 58,421 ; the Northern furnished 172,496; 
making about three men furnished to the conti- 
nental army by the Northern SU\tes to one from 
the Southern. 

Of militia, whose services are authenticated by 
the War Office, the Southern States furnished 



13 



12,719 ; the Northern furnished 46,048 ; making 
nearly four men furnished to the militia by the 
Northern States to one from the Southern. 

Of militia, whoso services were not authenti- 
cated by the War Office, but are set down in the 
return as conjectural only, we have 76,810 fur- 
nished by the Southern States, and 30,950 fur- 
nished by the Northern; making, under this head, 
more than two men furnished by the Southern to 
one from the Northern. The chiaf services of the 
Southern States — for which the venerable Sena- 
tor now claims so much— it will be observed with 
a smile, were conjectural only I 

Looking, however, at the sum total of conti- 
nental troops, authenticated militia, and conjec- 
tural militia, we have 147,940 furnished by the 
Southern States, while 249, &03 were furnished 
by the Northern; making 100,000 men furnished 
to the war by the Northern more than the South- 
ern. 

But the disparity swells when we directly com- 
pare South Oaroliua and Massachusetts. Of con- 
tinental troops, and authenticated miiitia, and con- 
jectural militia. South Carolina furnished 33, .508, 
while Massachusetts furnished 92,592 ; making 
in the latter sum nearly three men for one fur- 
nished by South Carolina. Look, however, at 
the continental troops and the authenticated mili- 
tia furnished by the two States, and here you 
will find only 5,508 furnished by South Carolina, 
while 83,092 were furnished by Massachusetts — 
being sixU'en tiiiir.s more than hy South Cnrolinu^ and 
much more than by all the Southern Statea together. 
Here are facts and figures of which the Senator 
oight not to be ignorant. 

Did the occasion require, I might go further, 
and minutely portray the imbecility of the South- 
ern States, and particularly of South Carolina, 
in the war of the Revolution, as compared with 
the Northern States. This is a sad chapter of 
history, upon which I unwillingly dwell. Faith- 
ful annals record that, as early as 1778, the six 
South Carolina regiments, composing, with the 
Georgia regiment, the regular force of the South- 
ern Department, did not, in the whole, muster 
above eight hundred men ; nor wa^ it possible to 
fill up their ranks. During the succeeding year, 
the Governor of South Carolina, pressed by the 
British forces, oifered to stipulate the neutrality 
of his State during the war, leaving it to Vie de- 
cided at the i)eace to whom it should belong — a 
premonitory symptom of the secession proposed 
in our own day ! At last, after the fatal field of 
Camden, no organized American force was left in 
this i-egion. The three Southern States — ariimui 
opibiisqae parati, according to the vaunt of the 
Senator — had not a single battalion in the field. 
During all this period the men of Massachusetts 
were serving their country, not at home, but 
away from their own borders ; foi-, from the time 
of the Declaration of Independence, Massachu- 
setts never saw the smoke of an enemy's camp. 

At last, by the military genius and remarkable 
exertions of General Greene, a Northern man, 
who assumed the command of the Southern ar- 
my. South Carolina was rescued from the British 
power. But the trials of this successful leader 
reveal, in a striking manner, the weakness of the 



"slaveholding" State which he saved. Some of 
these are graphically presented in his letters. 
Writing to Governor Reed, of Pennsylvania, un- 
der date of 3d May, 1781, he says: 

" Those whose true interest it was to have in- 
' formed Congress and the people to the north- 
' ward of the real state of things, have joined in 
' the deception, and magnified the strength and rc- 
' sources of this country infinitely above their ability. 
' Many of those, who adhere to our party, are so 
' fond of pleasure, that they cannot think of ma- 
' king the necessary sacrifices to support the Rev- 
' olution. There are many good and virtuous people 
' to the soiithxcard ; but they cannot animate the in- 
' habitants iri general, as you can to the northward." — 
Gordon's History of American Revolution^ vol. 4, 
page 87. 

Writing to Colonel Davies, under date of 23d 
May, 1781, he exposes the actual condition of the 
country : 

" The animosity between the Whigs and Tories 
' of this State renders their situation truly deplo- 
' rable. There is not a day passes but there are 
' more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage 
' disposition. The Whigs seem determined to ex- 
' tirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. 
' Some thousands have fallen in this way in this 
' quarter, and the evil rages with more violence 
' than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these 
' massacres, the country will he depopulated in a 
' few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can 
' live." 

To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 
29th December, 1780, describes the weakness of 
his troops : 

"It is uow within a few days of the time you 
' mentioned of being with me. Were you to ar- 
' rive, you would find a few ragged, half-starved 
' troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything 
' necessary for either the comfort or convenience 
'of soldiers." * * * ''The country is al- 
' most laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder 
' one another with little less than savage fury. 
' We live from hand to mouth, and have nothing 
' to subsist on but what we collect with armed 
' parties. In this situation, I believe you will 
' agree with me, there is nothing inviting this 
' way, especially when I assure you our whole 
' (brce fit for duty, that are properly clothed and 
' properly equipped, does not amount to eight 
' hundred men." — Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. 1, 
page 340. 

Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, 
he says : 

" There is a great spirit of enterprise prevail- 
' iiig among the militia of these Southern States, 
' especially with the volunteers. But their mode 
' of going to war is so destructive, that it is the 
' greatest folly in the ivorid to trust the liberties of a 
^people to such a precarious defence." — -Johnson's 
Life of Greene, vol. \,p. 397. 

Nothing can be more authentic or complete 
than this testimony. Here also is what is said 
by David Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South 
Carolina, in his history of the revolution in that 
State, published in 1785, only a short time after 
the scenes which he describes : 

" While the American soldiers lay encamped, 



14 



' [in the low country nt-iir Cliarli-ston,] their lat- 
' tered rags wore so comiilctcly worn out, that 
'seven hundred of them were as nuked as they 
' were born, excepting a suiiill strip of cloth 
' about their waists, and they were nearly as des- 
' titute of meat as of clotliing." — ['ol. 2, p. 258. 

The military weakness of this " slaveholdiug 
coramuiiity" is too apparent. Learn now its oc- 
casion : and then join with me in amazement 
that a Senator from South Carolina should at- 
tribute our independence to anything " slavehold- 
iug." The records of the country, and various 
voices, all disown his brag for Slavery. The State 
of South Carolina, b^- authentic history, di.^own.s 
it. Listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive 
testimony, under date of March 20, 1770, from 
the Secret Journal of the Continental Congress : 

" The committee appointed to take into consid- 
' eration the circumslancrs of the Southern Stale", and 
'the ways and means for M^(> safety and defence, 
'report, that the State of South Carolina, (as rep- 
' resented by the Delegates of the said State, and 
'by Mr. Huger, who has come here at the retjuest 
'of the Governor of the said State, on purpose to 
'explain the circumstances thereof.) is UNABLE 
'to make any effectual efforts with militia, by rea- 
' son of the great proportion of citizens neccusar;/ 
^to remain at home, to prevent iiisiirreclion among the 
^negroejs, and to prevent the desertion of them to 
'the enemy. That the state of the country, and 
' the great number of these people among them, expose 
'the inhabitants to great danger, from the endcav- 
'ors of the enemy to excite them to revolt or de- 
' scrt."— Fo/. 1, ;>. 105. 

Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her 
militarj' weakness, and its ignoble occasion; thus 
repudiating, in advance, the vaunt of her Sena- 
tor, who finds strength andgratulation in slavery 
rather than in freedom. It was during the war 
that she thus shrived herself, on bended knees, 
in the confessional of the Continental Congress. 
But the same ignominious confession was made, 
some time af\cr the war, in open debate, on the 
floor of Congress, by Mr. liurke, a Representative 
from South Carolina: 

" There is not a gentleman on the floor who is 
' a stranger to the feclde situation of our State, 
' when we entered into tiie war to oppose the lirit- 
' ish [lower. We were not on,';/ u-ifhout money, n-ithotil 
' (tn army or military stores, but tee vere few in 
' number, and likely to be entangled icith our dumes- 
* tics, in cafe, the enemy inradtd t/r." — Annals of 
Congress, 1780, 1791, vol. 2, page 1484. 

Similar testimony to the weakness engendered 
by .slavery was also borne by Mr. .Madison, in 
open debate in Congress: 

" Every addition Ihey [Goorgia and South 
' Carolina] rc-eive to their number of slavcfl, 
' Und.1 to tcraf-rn iLin, and rcndi-r them less capable 
' of self-defence." — AnnaU of Congress, vol, \,page 
■MO. 

The historian of South Caroliiin, Dr. Ramsay, a 
contemporary observer of tiie very scenes which 
ho <lescribcp, also exposes this weakness: 

" The forces under the comnuind of Uoncral 

Provost marched through tiie richest eettle- 
' ments of the Hljitc, where arc the fewest white 
' inhabitants in proportion to the Dumber of 



' slaves. The hajilcts Africans, allured tcith the 
' hope of freedom, forsook their owners, and repaired 
' in great numbers to the royal army. They en- 
' deavored to recommend themselves to their 
' new masters by discovering where their owners 
' had concealed their property, and were assist- 
' ing in carrying it off." — Jli.itory of South Caroli- 
na, vol. \,page 312. 

And the same candid historian, describing the 
invasion of the next year, says : 

" The slaves a second time /locked to the British 
' army." — Vol. ], page 33G. 

And at a still later day. .Mr. Justice Johnson, 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
a citizen of South Carolina, in his elaborate Life 
of General Greene, speaking of negro slaves, 
makes the same unhappy admission. He says : 

"Rut the number dispersed through these 
' [Southern] States was very great ; so great, as 
' to render it impossible for the cilisetis to muster 
'freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the 
' British arms." — Vol. 2, page 472. 

Surely, sir, this is enough, and more. Thus, 
from authentic documents — including t!ie very 
mu.<tcr-rolls of the Revolution — we learn tlie small 
contributions of men and the military weakness 
of the Southern States, particularly of South 
Carolina, as compared with the Norther^ States ; 
and from the y^ry lips of South Carolina, on 
four different O'.'- ■sions, speaking by a commit- 
tee ; by one of ber Representatives in Congress ; 
by her historian, and by an eminent citizen, we 
have the confession not only of weakness, but 
that this weakness was caused by slavery. And 
yet, in the face of this cumulative and unim- 
peachable testimony, we are called to listen, in 
the American Senate, to a high-flying boast, from 
a venerable Senator, that American imlepend- 
ence was achieved by the arms and treasure of 
" slaveliolding communities;" an assumption, 
baseless as tiie fabric of a vision, in any way ii 
may be interpreted; whether as meaning baldly 
that independence was achieved by those South- 
ern States, which were the peculiar home of 
shivery, or that it was achieved by any strength 
or inHucnce which came from that noxious 
source. Sir, I speak here for a Commonwealth 
of just renown, but I s])eak also for a cause 
which is more than any Commonwealth, even 
that whicii 1 represent; and I cannot allow the 
Senator, with his silver-white locks, to discredit 
eitiier. Not by slaver^-, but in spite of it, was 
independence achieved. Not because, but not- 
uithstauding, there were "slavcholding commu- 
nities," did triumph descend upon our arms. It 
was the insjiiration of Liberty Universal that 
conducted ns through the red sea of the Revolu- 
tion, as it had already given to the l>eclnration 
of Independence its mighty tune, resounding 
through the ages. " Let it be remembered,' 
said the nation, spealcing by the voice of the 
Continental fJungress, at the close of the war, 
" that it has ever been the priiie and boast of 
Ameriia, that the rights for which slie has con- 
tended were tiik luonrs of fiL'MAN satikb!" 
Yes, sir, in this behalf, ant" by this sign, we con- 
quered. 

Such, sir, is my answer on this head to the 



15 



Senator from South Carolina. If the work which 
I undertook has been done thoroughly, he must 
not blame me. Whatever I undertake, I am apt 
to do thoroughly. But while thus rebelling the 
insinuations against Massachusetts, aad the as- 
sumptions for slavery, I would not unnecessarily 
touch the sensibilities of that Senator, or of the 
State which he represents. I cannot forget that, 
amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound 
together by the ties of a common country — that 
Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister 
States, and that the concord of sisters ought to 
prevail between them ; but I am constrained to 
declare, that throughout this debate I have sought 
in vain any token of that just' spirit which, within 
the sphere of its influence, is calculated to pro- 
mote the concord whether of States or of indi- 
viduals. 

And now, for the present, I part with the ven- 
erable Senator from South Carolina. In pursuing 
his inconsistencies, and in exposing them to 
judgment, I had almost forgotten his associate 
leader in the wanton and personal assault to 
which I have been exposed — I mean the veteran 
Senator fkim Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] who is now 
directly in my eye. With imperious look, and 
in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble, that Senator 
has unS-ertaken to call in question my statement 
that the Fugitive Slave Bill denied the writ of 
habeas corpus ; and, in doing this, he has assumed 
a superio "ity for himself which, permit me to tell 
him now in this presence, nothing in him can 
sanction. Sir, I claim little for myself; but 1 
shrink in no respect from an}^ comjiarison with 
that Senator, veteran though lie be. Sitting near 
him, as has been my fortune since I have been on 
this floor, I have come to know someming of his 
conversalion, something of his manners, some- 
thing of his attainments, something of his abili- 
ties, something of his character — aye, sir, and 
something of his associations ; and, while I would 
not underta!ce to disparage him in any of these 
respects, yet I feel that I do*not exalt myself un- 
duly — th|it I do not claim too much for the posi- 
tion which I hold, or the name which I have es- 
tablished — when I openly declare that, as a Sena- 
tor of Massachusetts, and as a man, I place my- 
self at every point in unhesitating comparison 
with that honorable assailant. And to his per- 
emptory assertion that the Fugitive Slave Bill 
does not deny the habeas coi-jnis, I oppose my 
assertion, as peremptory as his own, that it docs, 
and there I leave that question. 

Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which 
the Senator from Virginia displays at the expo- 
sure of the Fugitive Slave Bill in its true charac- 
ter. He is the author of that enormity. From 
his brain came forth the soulless monster. He is, 
therefore, its natural guardian. The' Senator is, 
I believe, a lawyer. And now, since he has 
shown a disposition to meet objections to that 
offspring, he must not stop with the objection 
founded on the denial of the habeas corpus. It is 
true, sir, if anything but slavery were in ques- 
tion, such an objection would be fatal ; but it is 
not to be supposed that the partisans of an in- 
stitution founded on a denial of human rights, 
can appreciate the proper eflicacy of that writ of 



freedom. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend 
his progeny; not by assertion, but by reason. 
Let him rally all the ability, learning, and sub- 
tlety, which he can command, and undertake the 
impossible work. 

_ Let him answer this objection. The Constitu- 
tion, by an amendment which Samuel Adams 
hailed as a protection against the usurpations of 
the National Government, and which Jefferson 
asserted was our "foundation corner-stone," has 
solemnly declared that " the powers not delega- 
ted to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the people." Stronger 
words could not be employed to limit the powers 
under the Constitution, and to protect the people 
from all assumptions of the National Govern- 
ment, particularly in derogation of freedom. By 
the Virginia resolutions of 1^98, which the Sen- 
ator is reputed to accept, this limitation of the 
powers of the National Government is recognised 
and enforced. The Senator himself is under- 
stood, on all questions not affecting the claims of 
slavery, to espouse this rule in its utmost strict- 
ness. Let him now indicate, if he can, any rti- 
cle, clause, phrase, or word, in the Constit„cion, 
which gives to Congress any power to establish 
a "uniform law throughout the United Stat«s " 
on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him now 
show, if he can, from the records of the Federal 
Convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any 
such ])Ower. Vrnatever may be its interpretation 
in other ^espect,^, the clause on which this bill 
purports to be founded gives no such a power. 
Sir, nothing can come out of nothing; and the 
Fugitive Sla\e Bill is, therefore, without any 
source or origin in the Constitution. It is an 
open and unmitigated usurpation. 

And, sir, when the veteran Senator of Virgiui;i 
has answered this objection: when he has been 
able to find in the Constitution a power which is 
not to be tbund, and to make us see what is not 
to be seen, then let him answer another objec- 
tion. The Constitution has secured the inesti- 
mable right of trial by jury in " suits at common 
law," where the value in controversy exceeds 
twenty dollars. Of course, freedom is not sus- 
ceptible of pecuniary valuation, therefore there 
can be no question that the claim for a fugitive 
slave is within this condition. In determining 
what is meant by " suits at common law," re- 
course must be had to the common law itself^ 
precisely as we resort to that law in order to de- 
termine what is meant by trial by jury. Let the 
Senator, if he be a lawyer, now undertake to 
show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, ac- 
cording to the early precedents and writs — well 
knov/n to the framers of the Constitution, es[ie- 
cially to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John 
Rutledge, of South Carolina, both of whom had 
studied law at the Temple — a sail at common 
laic, to which, under the solemn guaranty of the 
Constitution, is attached the trial by jury, as an 
inseparable incident. Let the Senator undertake 
to show this, if he can. 

And, sir, when the veteran Senator has found 
a power in the Constitution where none exists, 
and has set aside the right of trial by jury in a 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



16 



Buil 4t commoQ Ihvt, ihcn let bim answer yet 
uiutbcr objection, liy the judgiueut of ibe Jsu-^ 
prenie Court of tbe United States, a claim fur u^ 
fupr'uivf -iliivc is declared to be <« ciuf, undrr the 
( withiu tbe judiciul power; and tbis j 

I tbe Court is cimfirnied by comuioii 
ueiiM- .i;:i loinuion law. Let tbe 8eniil<>r under- 
take to show, if he i.;iu, bow such iin exalted ex- ! 
•rcitie of judicial power can be contidcd to a Hiiijjle i 
petty luiiyi-strate, appointed not by tbe I'resident, j 
Ikilb the advice and consent of tbe ^^en:Ue, but , 
by tbe Court ; holding his oflice, not during good 
behaviour, but merely during the will of tbe , 
Court; and receiving not a regular salary, but ' 
fees according to eiu;h individual case. Let the : 
Senator answer tlii^ objei lion, if, in any way, by I 
»ny twist of learning, logi'', or law, be can. 

Thus, sir, d») I present the issue directly on this ( 
outrageous enactment. Let the author of the [ 
Fugitive Slave Bill meet it. He will find me ready j 
to Allow him in argument, though I tru.-^t never 
to be led, even by bis example, into any departure ' 
from those courtesies of debate which are essen- 
tial to the harmony of every legislative body. 

Su'.b, .Mr. Trcsidenl, is my response to all that , 
has lueu said, so far aa I deem it in any way , 
worthy of attention. To tbe two associate chief- , 
tains in ibis personal assault, tbe veteran .Senator I 
from Virginia, and the Senator from South Car- | 



oliua w II I II II II III " "^^ replied 

comple 011 897 864 fi 9 ined in 

the cry, ..„..,>. v..^.o^. oasuciaics ui&i started ; but 
1 shall not be tempted further. Some there are 
who are be^t answered by silence ; best answered 
by withholding the words which leap impulsively 
to the lips. 

And now, turning my back upon these things, 
let me, for one moment, before 1 close, dwell on a 
single aspect of this discussion which will render 
it memorable. On former occasions like this, 
the right of petition has been vehemently assail- 
ed, or practically denied. Only two years ago, 
memorials for the roi)eal of the Fugitive Slave 
Bill, presented by ine, were laid on your table, 
Mr. I'residcnt, without reference to any commit- 
tee. All is changed now. Senators have con- 
demned the memorial, and sounded the cry of 
" treason," •' treason," in our ears ; but thus far, 
throughout this excited debate, no person I'as so 
completely outraged the spirit of our institution^ 
or forgotten himself, as to persist in objecting tt» 
the reception of the memorial, and its proper 
reference. It is true, the remonstrants and their 
representatives here have been treated with in- 
dignity ; but the great right of petition — the 
sword and buckler of the citizen — though thus 
discredited, has not been denied. Uerdf sir, is 
a triumph of Freedom. 



